| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, Hello I kinda new here.
Secondly, I know how to read the rules, and I am reading them. Finding details about the differences between these two classes is easy enough.
What eludes me is the practical application of the class, what roles they can fill, and etc. If several of you with some Pathfinder experience could please chime in and help I would be grateful.
What I am looking for:
1. High level or abstract differences between Wizards and Sorcerers. Why would one choose to play one over the other?
2. Perhaps details about the differences that are not apparent, or rather, things that most people don't know about the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers.
3. Offering your opinion on your preferred class (Wizard or Sorcerer) but PLEASE if you do, contrast that with the other class. Why do you like what you like over the other class?
4. Any other helpful comparisons or contrasts between Wizards and Sorcerers.
Again it's easy enough to look up differences in the RAW but what's hard (at least for me) is seeing the implications of those rules.
I looked at some old threads on this and they helped a little, but they were old (there's been new material added since then), and unfortunately digressed quickly...one of them into a flame war (unusual for these forums from what I have seen).
Thanks,
rev
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards require more book keeping. They also have to select their spells every day, and the exact amount of time they want to use that spell.
A sorcerer knows less spells, but the spells he knows, he can cast until he runs out of slots.
2.Most people know the difference if they are not new to the game. Which one is chosen is just a matter of preference.
3. Trying to say which one is preferred will likely lead to a huge argument so I won't touch that one, but there are quiet a few threads on the issue. If the player knows his stuff it won't matter as much at the table as it does in theory anyway though. Both classes are powerful.
A person plays a wizard if they want the ability to cast any spell in existance. A person plays a sorcerer if they want the ability to cast any spell they know (which is few) many times per day.
Wizards can keep spell slots open and by expending a 5th level feat they can fill those slots in a single minute of preparation. This allows them to have many toolbox spell options. Sorcerer's are unable to do this without using consumables.
I prefer wizards because with careful management you can have the right spell at the right time. Sorcerers cannot do this as easily.
Sorcerers are easier to play than wizards. Rather than having to constantly figure out what spells will be useful or having to know half of the spells in the book (assuming you have learned so many spells) a sorcerer knows what he knows and that is all that he knows. That makes him easier to manage.
- Gauss
Sorcerors are easier to play, and tend to be more powerful off the cuff. They are forced to grab spells useful in a wide variety of situations, so they always have a trick to fall back on as long as they still have some of their copious spell slots.
Wizards are the masters of prepared spellcasting. If they know what they need, they can either have it, or get it into memory by one means or another. Their ability to accessorize with potions and scrolls as supplements also gives them additional versatility, although that versatility comes at the expense of increased costs for consumables and for acquiring spells/scribing/etc.
Style and mastery of their spells vs cunning and ability to prepare is what it boils down to.
Note that certain archetypes of wizards can steal much of a sorceror's thunder, while human sorcerors can learn 60+ spells and definitely don't have versatility problems. Too, sorcerors can use scrolls, potions, wands and staves for niche spells that rarely come up, which can take away much of the wizard's preparation edge.
In short, the sorc is always prepared with what they have on them, where the wizard would prefer to know what he is facing, and then prepare for the situation in an optimal manner out of the broader spell selection he is building for himself in his books.
If you want a level by level comparison of slots and spells, I actually drew one up, but the point is the playstyle, not the sheer raw power. The wizard doesn't end up with more spells available at one time then the sorc, while the sorc doesn't really end up with that many more spell slots castable. One is just capable of optimizing to beat an enemy, and the other is just capable of really leveraging what he already has more extensively.
==Aelryinth
Say you're a Wizard, used to flinging around Fire spells like its going out of fashion. Your DM notices this and swings the adventure around to facing foes that have decent if not total defense against fire based attacks. As a Wizard, you dip your hat to the DM and grin wickedly as you begin memorising Ice based spells. Adventure proceeds.
Say you're a Sorcerer in the same campaign, with the same predilection for Fire magic. Now you're borked. You can still use more spells per day than ol'booky Mcbookworm Wizard, but they do didly squat and you're a passenger now instead of a damage dealer. Just pray you also have battlefield control spells that are useful.
It pretty much boils down to play style and what you want out of your toon. More variety and versitily vs quantity and ease of book keeping. They tend to have different RP styles affiliated with them too.
Sorcerer bloodline abilities are generally cooler than Wizard school powers, although Conjurer (Teleportation) and Diviner (Foresight) are powerhouses.
Bloodlines also let you bake your character concept into your PC's actual abilities, which gives them a nice depth.
|
Alternatively, you can envision your Sorcerer as an X-men style mutant with a peculiarly low amount of HD. I mean, you've got dubious ancestry and a collection of weird, thematic powers.
Wizards are more like engineers. They like to analyze problems and break them into subproblems which are solved one by one, in order to achieve total victory over the whole problem.
Give a wizard time to deal with a problem, and he can acquire the right spells to do it. A solution that requires a lot of different spells is also still feasible.
Wizards are also scarier in numbers. They can teach each other spells, and preparing from another wizard's spellbook is pretty easy. Each one gets two spells every level; if they start sharing that's a LOT of spells in a 2+ wizard party. Wizards have a good motive to form guilds, and eventually those guilds will be sitting on a large pile of summoned/bound creatures, information, secrets man was not meant to know and favors owed by secular rulers who needed an arcane problem solved. Sort of like freemasons on crack.
Sorcerers are best when they're built to be self-sufficient. They don't need a whole lot of stuff; no spellbook and Eschew Materials for free. All the gear is just extras. In a way it's like the monk: a class that's "meant" not to need equipment, but because D&D/Pathfinder is an equipment-oriented game you're still better off taking a pile of bonus items.
Say you're a Wizard, used to flinging around Fire spells like its going out of fashion. Your DM notices this and swings the adventure around to facing foes that have decent if not total defense against fire based attacks. As a Wizard, you dip your hat to the DM and grin wickedly as you begin memorising Ice based spells. Adventure proceeds.
Say you're a Sorcerer in the same campaign, with the same predilection for Fire magic. Now you're borked. You can still use more spells per day than ol'booky Mcbookworm Wizard, but they do didly squat and you're a passenger now instead of a damage dealer. Just pray you also have battlefield control spells that are useful.
It pretty much boils down to play style and what you want out of your toon. More variety and versitily vs quantity and ease of book keeping. They tend to have different RP styles affiliated with them too.
That is not a class weakness, but a player weakness. Any smart player always has 2nd options.
Of course, just using it to highlight a difference in style.
Before opening this thread I pegged the over/under on # of posts before the class wars began as 5. I missed it by one.
Lots of good info up above. Some other stuff to consider:
Wizards are intelligence based, meaning they can also select a good number of skills.
Sorcerers are charisma based, meaning they generally have fewer skill options than a wizard, but they excel in the sorts of skills that allow your character to be the party "face."
Sorcerers don't need a spellbook and so can't lose or have theirs stolen.
Wizards get higher level spells one level earlier than sorcerers.
I love Wizards, I always have one of my favorite classes. I love versatility. That said, I find it harder and harder to justify playing a Wizard over a Sorcerer. Bloodlines let sorcerers do so much more than a wizard could dream. Want a monk or cleric sorcerer? Use the bloodline that let's you use WIS to cast. Want a super smart sorcerer with a lot of skill points? There's a bloodline for that (INT to cast). Mystic Thurge that uses the same stat for both classes, that takes away A LOT of the limitations of that PrC.
The Ultimate Magic gave Wizards Arcane Discoveries, which are pretty cool (Fast Study is wicked, super, cool), but that doesn't start to level 5 and uses up feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally:
If you play a sorcerer in a party without a wizard, you will be awesome.
If you play a sorcerer in a party with a wizard, you will be a sad sidekick.
Say you're a Sorcerer in the same campaign, with the same predilection for Fire magic. Now you're borked. You can still use more spells per day than ol'booky Mcbookworm Wizard, but they do didly squat and you're a passenger now instead of a damage dealer. Just pray you also have battlefield control spells that are useful.
Thus, having a feat or magic item that lets you cast a Fire (for example) spell as some other sort of energy is more important for Sorcerors than for Wizards. Unfortunately, Wizards get more bonus feats than Sorcerors do.
Another difference: Skills. They both start out with 2 ranks a level, but Wizards tend to have more skill ranks because they have more Intelligence. They also get all the Knowledge skills as class skills, and are good at them (from the Int). Sorcerors dont get so many skill ranks, and aren't so good at the Knowledge skills, but do get the often-useful Bluff, Intimidate, and Use Magic Device (which are Charisma-based) as class skills.
Paragon Surge has problems with it, tough.
1. Must be a half-elf (making them hugely better than any other race, which feels wrong)
2. Requires a 3rd level slot and an action (still totally worth it, mechanically)
and the big one:
3. It feels super-cheesy because you're side-stepping basic class structure with an obscure, restricted spell calling for an obscure feat.
Of course wizards already have items that let them spontaneously convert to any spell they know (restricted by school) so I suppose turnabout is fair play.
Generally:
If you play a sorcerer in a party without a wizard, you will be awesome.
If you play a sorcerer in a party with a wizard, you will be a sad sidekick.
That is not really true. You just have to remember to not play a sorcerer like its a wizard. By making sure each of you have certain responsibilities it also make life easier, and helps with being efficient since you are not doubling up in the same area.
|
Only for a halfelf.
I prefer wizards because with careful management you can have the right spell at the right time. Sorcerers cannot do this as easily.
Until the RPG this was true.
Paragon Surge now gives Sorcerers immediate access to ANY wizard spell.
And any optimized sorcerer will be a half-elf.
The spell is that powerful.
A wizard, at the beginning of the day, has the versatility and potential of every spell in his spellbook before him to optimize his layout, limited only by the slots to put them in.
The sorceror has the versatility of his spells known, and the power of many spell slots.
At the end of the day, the wizard has the versatility and potential of his spells remaining in memory...meaning his power wanes over the course of the day.
The sorceror has the potential of his entire amount of spells known, limited only by his remaining spell slots. As long as he has slots, especially higher level ones, his ability to perform is not impacted one bit.
Paragon Surge, while nice, is a 'cost' spell...you are spending a 3+ level slot to have access to another spell, which you then must cast. It's akin to metamagic feat cost...you burn through spell slots for flexibility.
If your spell selection is decent enough, Paragon Surge is really only going to be useful for niche and rare spells, the kind you don't actually want to have memorized, but want access to in special cases. You know, the kind you usually have on scrolls.
So, yes, I see the theoretical potential of Paragon Surge, but it's not going to redo the whole game, simply because of the casting cost and the fact a well-designed sorc, especially a human one grabbing tons of extra spells, shouldn't need to use the effect much, especially as you level.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Sorcerers, unlike wizards, are brutal but cunning.
Wizards, on the other hand, are cunning but brutal.
Seriously, though:
On the one hand you've got a PC who masters magic through years of careful study, applied cleverness, and a keen focus of mind. The wizard solves problems, answers questions, and experiments.
On the other hand, you have a PC who is suffused with magic from day one and must learn to control their innate powers to unlock their greater potential. The sorcerer is often forced into the spotlight whether he likes it or not, relies more on instinct and luck to overcome obstacles that he cannot strip away with his raw magical abilities.
Really good stuff here, thanks everyone for contributing. I understand much better some of the differences.
I am leaning toward sorcerer atm, since I like the idea of responding to situations off-the-cuff so to speak, and because I think the bloodline powers are cool.
After reading this through, here's what I am wondering: Some are adamant that sorcerers are not just second-rate wizards, implying that you play a sorcerer differently than a wizard, so can you articulate that difference? There are nuances in playing that can be difficult to explain to the inexperienced (surely), but is there a way to nutshell it?
How is a sorcerer played differently than a wizard that allows her to fill her own role (and not be the sad sidekick)?
Nice LazarX, I get it. Thanks.
(Now that you've spelled it out for me, it sorta seems obvious. Time to keep studying and figure out what I want and then maximize it.)
Only if you're a sad excuse for a sorcerer. Especially one with imagination so limited that you see your sorcerer as a wizard wannabe.Generally:
If you play a sorcerer in a party without a wizard, you will be awesome.
If you play a sorcerer in a party with a wizard, you will be a sad sidekick.
Have you ever played in a game with a wizard deciding to 'help' by waiting for the sorcerer to decide a selection of spells and then doing all the same things earlier and better?
You can't exactly stop that stuff when you are in a format where you can't choose who you're in a party with, such as PFS or other similar things.
Possibly earlier.
Not better. Caster level is caster level.
The sorc can cast TK 3-8 times a day, while the wizard has to memorize a bunch of TK spells. IF there's a certain spell needed to be spammed, the sorc has it all over the wizard. THe wizard trying to do the same thing is going to shaft his flexibility.
==Aelryinth
And we all know Batman trumps Superman.
|
And we all know Batman trumps Superman.
Only because writers continually give him the IQ of a turnip when he goes up against Batman.
Any battle between the two that featured Superman at his regular level of intellect would wind up with Batman LITERALLY defeated so fact that he wouldn't know what the hell had happened.
The only person who would defeat him faster would be the Flash. 'Cos, you know, before Wayne's brain has even processed the fact that he and the Flash are on opposite sides, the Flash has already won.
I think it is way more fun to play a wizard if you have a really good GM. So many options and flavor choices. But if you are playing in a low roleplay or a hack'n'slash group then pick a sorcerer and blast away.
Oh and Kthulhu you are so right on the turnip comment, so funny!
|
Wizards have the advantage that they can rearrange their spell loadout each day, to match the anticipated activities and challenges of that day. The drawback is that they HAVE to rearrange each day-- they don't always have access to their entire list of spells, and they risk finding themselves in a tight spot where a spell in their book COULD save them, if they'd known to prepare it.
Sorcerers have the advantage that they can more quickly adapt to an unexpected turn of events, because they always have access to all the spells they know, and can apply metamagic feats on the fly. The drawback is that they know much fewer spells, so each one they learn they have to get good mileage out of.
In practice? Wizards reward careful planning and forethought while sorcerers reward ingenuity and quick thinking under pressure.
A wizard's versatility is the "just the right tool for the job" kind-- he can fill his spellbook with all sorts of spells for all sorts of occasions, and given a day's notice can be ready for just about anything.
A sorcerer's versatility is the "1001 uses for the angle grinder" kind-- he can't afford to learn a spell he won't use on a regular basis, and must therefore focus on spells that are useful in a variety of situations.
I think it is way more fun to play a wizard if you have a really good GM.I just think it's way more fun to play any game with a really good GM. :)
HERE HERE!
(I just wish there were more around...)
Sorcerers cast more spells but have access to less spells. wizards cast less spells but have access to more spells. Wizards have a faster casting progression. Sorcerers get bloodlines. Sorcerers are charismatic and wizards are intelligent. Wizards are a little bit better at metamagic and gets a familiar. Both get extra feats but the sorcerer is tied down more when it comes to which ones they can choose. In the end I think the wizard is weaker at earlier levels but surpasses the sorcerer.
Another way of putting it might be this:
Wizards must be like Batman, planning their utility belt each day. Some days you really do need shark-repellent-bat-spray. And you have it if you planned well.
Sorcerers must be McGyver, You may only have duct tape and a pocket knife, but you Always have it.
Although I don't read order of the stick anymore they summed it up well, wizards are swiss army knives while Sorcerers are a single hammer because of the wizards ability to change spells they want to cast, even with a few hours before the big boss battle they could choose. The Sorcerers are powered by heritage and so have a smaller list of spells they can cast because its the heratige that gives them spells but they are also gifted with powers of their ancestors. If you go Sorcerer a nice thing to get would be to get the bloodline feats which make it so you get an extra bloodline up to the power before the ultimate. Hope this helps.
The previous posters have all adeptly described the game mechanical differences, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the wizard and sorcerer classes. I have nothing to add on that score. I'd like to take a different approach, and talk about the role-playing side of things (or "fluff" if you have to call it that): how wizards and sorcerers get their powers, and how this difference informs the game mechanics.
Wizards are magical by virtue of what they know. They cast spells because they have carefully studied the theory and practice of magic. They have learned their craft by study and experiment, and by studying under the tutelage of older, more experienced wizards. They understand the magical forces at play, and by applying this knowledge, can cause magical effects to occur. Because they are always learning, they are able to study the magical writings of other wizards and from these writings, learn from the experiences of others. Due to their scholarly nature, they are also adept at non-magical scholarly pursuits as well. (e.g. all knowledge skills, bonus magical feats).
Sorcerers are magical by their very nature. Magic has coursed through their veins since birth, and they have learned to control this force through self-study and force of their own personality. Sorcerers don't need to study magical writings (indeed, sorcerers find wizards spellbooks to be gibberish), and most don't have much of a grasp on how magic works. They just know how to control their own power, which increases with their own self-knowledge (i.e. gaining levels). The self-knowledge is limited by the quirks their bloodline, and they cannot learn new "tricks" from other sources the way a wizard can. But their power comes from within, and they have no spellbook to lose, nor do they need material components. Because they are so focused on the magic that comes from within, they don't have as much time or inclination for other pursuits (i.e. skills or bonus feats).
|
|
If your DM is very predictable, then you can make a Sorcerer with exactly the right stuff for the campaign.
If the DM is somewhat predictable, a Wizard could prepare the best spells for the day.
If the DM is totally unpredictable, you just select the most versatile spells and pray...
---
But seriously. I'm playing in a campaign and we basically keep facing the same kinds of enemies, so I keep preparing the same kinds of spells. I'm starting to feel like a lame sorcerer :s